Despite Protections, Landmarks Decay

Published: August 2, 1987

(Page 2 of 3)

''Citibank has not maintained the building in a manner that we consider appropriate,'' said Susan Tunick, president of the group's New York chapter. ''Lots of work hasn't been done and other work has been done incorrectly.'' A spokesman for Citibank said the building is being well maintained.

Like many other preservationists, Mrs. Tunick appreciates the economic quandary that owners face. ''After spending a hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars, you don't even see a difference,'' she said. ''Restoration work is like dentistry - most people would rather put it off until they're in complete agony. But, unfortunately, at that point the work is much more expensive and time consuming.''

By statute, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has broad powers to insure that owners maintain landmark buildings. But, according to most observers, the commission does not exercise those powers.

''First of all they don't have the staff to enforce them,'' said Ms. Beckelman of the Conservancy, which has helped finance the restoration of several endangered landmarks. ''Secondly, the climate would not be too favorable for enforcement -especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on land use.''

In that case, the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the church had the right to claim compensation after being barred from developing property in a hilly area threatened by floods. The case, decided in June, has some state and local land-use planners worried, but others say its impact on historic landmarks will likely be minimal.

A more troubling question for historic landmarks remains unanswered: Who should carry the financial burden of restoration? New York City designates buildings as landmarks for the benefit of everyone, but the obligation to pay craftsmen to recast crumbling terra cotta or rebuild windows rests solely on the owner.

When a more equitable arrangement is adopted, city officials may feel confident enough to force owners to restore crumbling landmarks. But for now, despite official threats and ultimatums, almost any owner who challenges the system discovers that he can indulge in benign or malicious neglect with impunity.

''When we notice a problem property, we enter into a discussion with the owner and point out ways that certain repairs can be made,'' said Mr. Norman, chairman of the landmarks commission. ''Sometimes the owner is very cooperative, other times the owner is very reluctant. It's a spotty record in that sense.''

ON Roosevelt Island, roofless and windowless landmarks stand as reminders of the limits of landmark designation. The buildings are hardly owned by a penniless landlord. The state's Urban Development Corporation holds a 99-year lease on them, along with most of the other property on the city-owned island between Manhattan and Queens.

On the south end of Roosevelt Island, the wood-and-granite remains of two 19th-century hospital buildings recall the deft touch of the architect James Renwick Jr., who also designed St. Patrick's Cathedral. On the north end of the island the Octagon Tower, built in 1839 and scarred by fire, stands abandoned.

''We have no money in our budget for these buildings,'' said Martha Sickles, director of planning and development for the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, an independent management arm organized in cooperation with the U.D.C. ''We've applied for funds from the Environmental Quality Bond Act, but that's minimal in relation to our needs.''

Those funds are a first-time allocation of $5 million, which the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation will divide up among dozens of buildings throughout the state, beginning this week. By comparison, one of Renwick's buildings on Roosevelt Island, City Hospital, would require almost $5 million simply to stabilize its decayed condition.

Another one of Renwick's buildings, the Smallpox Hospital, would require about $1.1 million to stabilize. Full restoration would be much more expensive. ''It's a problem trying to come up with creative uses for these buildings,'' Ms. Sickles said.

Indeed many landmarks, like curmudgeons, do not adapt well to change. Their design for such obsolete functions as 19th-century medical treatment make them difficult candidates for reuse.

''This building has a very inefficient design for housing,'' said Joseph N. Center, a developer, referring to the Association Residence for Women, a vacant and weary city landmark at Amsterdam Avenue and 104th Street.

The four-story building once housed indigent widows of war veterans. Now it is vacant, with gaping holes that provide views from the first floor straight up to the roof.

Next month, with the proceeds of a $5 million securities offering, work will begin on converting the building into a 477-bed youth hostel. The project will work financially, Mr. Center said, because the building is also a Federal landmark. That allows investors to secure tax credits, although Federal tax reform last year reduced that incentive.